The idea that no one is above the law is truly one of the most anti-democratic concepts ever devised.
Their recourse is to pass better laws and elect better people to enforce the laws. But the people can’t do anything to their fellow citizens directly, but only through the law. That’s what rule of law means. The rule of law means that we don’t base things on the whim of any particular person - or any group of people, or the majority of people.
Say someone is really unpopular, hated even, but he hasn’t broken any laws. Can the majority vote to throw him into jail? Why not? Isn’t that democracy? Or the opposite - say the public really loves a criminal. Can they choose to set him free?
Due process is not just some inconvenience, it’s the cornerstone of civilization. If due process isn’t working, then you don’t ignore it, or bypass it - you fix it.
President Biden has made the IMHO correct choice to not seek federal charges against trump. Several states are moving forward, however.
Who is? Hundreds of indictments, dozens of guilty verdicts, several long terms in the Iron Bar hotel, that doesn’t sound like “getting away with it”. And more is to come.
Well…yeah…but no heads on pikes at the city gates, amirite?
And why should he? A President who directs the DOJ would be as corrupt as Donald Trump.
Cite that Biden has made any choice regarding prosecuting Trump?
Some of the flunkies with the costumes and face paint are getting punished. But I’m not aware of any of the people in power who egged them on who’s suffering any consequences. And they’re the ones who need to be deterred from orchestrating a sequel in 2024.
This does not support your assertion.
The rule of law to Trump supporters is to storm the Capital and try to overthrow the government. And they are getting slaps on the wrist for that.
I know we’ve seen this before, but hope springs eternal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/politics/jan-6-committee-criminal-referrals.html
According to people briefed on their efforts, investigators for the committee are looking into whether a range of crimes were committed, including two in particular: whether there was wire fraud by Republicans who raised millions of dollars off assertions that the election was stolen, despite knowing the claims were not true; and whether Mr. Trump and his allies obstructed Congress by trying to stop the certification of electoral votes.
How so?
It is my understanding from the comments preceding mine that these sorts of “crimes” are essentially political in nature, and only tyrants criminalize politics.
Not to get anyone’s hopes up, but I know from personal experience working with a Joint organized Crime task force, etc, that wire fraud and Money laundering are comparatively easy to get convictions on. No witnesses to kill or scare for one thing.
What sort of scare-quotes “crimes” are you referring to here? Are you suggesting that the indicted Jan. 6 insurrectionists aren’t being charged with actual crimes?
Because AFAICT, smashing your way into a government building and destroying government property and smearing feces on the walls etc. are actual crimes in pretty much anybody’s book, rather than being merely made-up “political” accusations.
And “white-collar” crimes like wire fraud and money laundering are actual crimes too.
Not to mention assaulting police officers.
I think these things are crimes.
The posts I was reacting to posit that the proper reaction to these crimes is elections rather than prosecutions.
I think that there must be prosecutions of leaders not just foot soldiers.
Hmm. I think what’s confusing people (certainly me) is your statement in post #2629 that “The idea that no one is above the law is truly one of the most anti-democratic concepts ever devised.”
I don’t see how the principle of equal treatment under the law, irrespective of wealth or status, is in any way “anti-democratic”. And your later endorsement of prosecuting “leaders, not just foot soldiers” (which I agree with) also seems to contradict that claim.
So, ? 